ABSTRACT
This chapter evaluates some of the most important ways in which theists have attempted to show that one have no good reason to accept Rowe's first premise. Rowe's article generated considerable discussion in the form of criticism, defense, and refinement of the argument. One important line of criticism of Rowe's first premise is exemplified in some articles by Stephen J. Wykstra focusing on the issue of when one is entitled to make a claim about the way things epistemically appear to one. Wykstra first raised this criticism in an article entitled 'The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of Appearance'. The foregoing criticism assumes that Wykstra is interested in providing reasons why one would not see future goods that justify God's permitting evil events if the goods are thought to be correlated one-to-one with particular evil events.
